Share this story

According to a story at Android Police, a number of developers of Android apps which have the capability to block ads in Web browsers have received notifications from Google that their apps have been kicked out of the Google Play store and are no longer available for download.

The notifications from Google clearly note that the reason the apps are being pulled is because they violate the Google Play Store's developer agreement:

REASON FOR REMOVAL: Violation of section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement.

After a regular review we have determined that your app interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner. This violates the provision of your agreement with Google referred to above.

A search for "adblock" on the play store this morning returned no relevant results, and directly accessing a URL for an ad-blocking package shows the package's page and a notice that the app is "no longer available."

The open nature of the Android platform means that for skilled users, the removal of the apps from the Google Play Store is more a nuisance than an actual deterrent. For example, AdAway, one of the popular applications, can still be obtained by following the instructions on the developer's page and switching to F-Droid, an open alternative to the Google Play store.

Android Police observes, and we agree, that ad blockers do indeed constitute a pretty clear violation of the Play Store developer agreement's terms of service—though, in typical legal fashion, the language is broad. Section 4.4, "Prohibited Actions," reads as follows:

4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market.

That clause could arguably be used to remove almost any app for almost any reason, but Google's decision is certainly a sensible move. Of course, determined folks will still find a way around it, as they always do.

Share this story

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and gaming/culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and human space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com

It makes sense given that Google makes their money through advertising althouhgh they seem to be moving towards online services more and more. But given that they seemed fairly ok with ad bloc in previous interviews seems like a bit of a change of heart.

I guessing though as you can just install Ad-blocks from a third party install in won't stop people who really want to block ads.

Since you can install apps from any source, this isn't really an issue. You just can't download them from Google's store because it violates one of their policies - this isn't as damning as it would be in the Apple ecosystem - you're SOL unless you jailbreak.

But doesn't quite make sense given the 'open' nature of Android and Google Play; since Adblock plus is not a malware!

The devs who get their ads blocked might disagree with you.

A programmatic agent blocking ads on the user's behalf is no more malware than a programmatic agent changing colors to compensate for color blindness on the user's behalf. It's not wrong of devs to ship websites and apps that feature ads, and it's not wrong of a device owner to assert their autonomy on their own machine.

I consider the ethical thing to do to specifically delist sites you enjoy regularly from Adblock. I delist all the web comics I read, reddit, etc.

And frankly, as long as ad networks remain a major vector of malicious JavaScript injection, I can't be compelled to lose sleep over the rest.

I think this is a bad move, because smart users will have to advise those they advise either to find less secure channels for installing security software which Google doesn't like, or to put up with the annoyance and wasted bandwidth of ads they don't like.

Clearly Google are telling users that user authorisation counts for little compared with corporate authorisation, when it comes to who owns the platform users purchase into. At one time Google were a neccessary antidote to the practices of Microsoft - and now they're behaving in just as evil a manner.

I guess this hastens the day when I get rid of vendor supplied Android and install Cyanogen mod on my mobile devices - similar move to when I ditched Microsoft as my main desktop in favour of Linux and for similar reasons.

Good. If a site has irritating ads, stop going there and contact the administrator to explain why. But I like my internet free (as in beer), and ad-blocking software is a real threat to the current state.

But doesn't quite make sense given the 'open' nature of Android and Google Play; since Adblock plus is not a malware!

Well, 'Google Play' doesn't necessarily have to be wide open. Android still is. This move doesn't stop you from putting an adblock app on your device from another store or from side loading. It just stops the official store being the source of something that stops the primary source of revenue for the official store's company.

Silly move. If you are tech savvy enough to install Adblock in the first place, then you are also smart enough to search (on Google, of course) for a solution to this problem and install from a 3rd party website. Which, of course, will be more insecure and inconvenient. The net result for Google is animosity from casual customers.

So I have a question for all the experts out there. Is the data used by these ads downloaded only when the phone is connected to a wireless network?

Reason I ask is that mobile bandwidth is limited and expensive. I have no issues with FREE apps having ads but they better be only downloading their stuff while I am on a free, unlimited downloads, wireless connection.

Otherwise, let me control when it downloads ad data or cellphone providers need to distinguish between ad data downloaded and NOT take it off our alloted monthly bandwidth.

So I have a question for all the experts out there. Is the data used by these ads downloaded only when the phone is connected to a wireless network?

Reason I ask is that mobile bandwidth is limited and expensive. I have no issues with FREE apps having ads but they better be only downloading their stuff while I am on a free, unlimited downloads, wireless connection.

Otherwise, let me control when it downloads ad data or cellphone providers need to distinguish between ad data downloaded and NOT take it off our alloted monthly bandwidth.

I doubt any ad-financed app cares about what type of connection you're on. Mostly because very few cares, most just want their apps to be free.

Personally I prefer paid apps without ads, but it isn't always easy to find good paid alternatives. :\

That clause could arguably be used to remove almost any app for almost any reason, but Google's decision is certainly a sensible move

Yeah I'm not a fan of that clause. It could be very easy to interpret freezing, killing, or firewalling apps to be "interfering" with them. If they ever start pulling utilities like Droidwall and ROM Toolbox, my interest in Android is going to drop immensely.

And while obviously Google has an interest in ads, it's still a bit hypocritical considering how many "legit" apps want to access my personal information and how little Google does to stop it. There are many apps I refuse to install because the app features are not worth the tradeoff of giving all my phone call records and GPS location to advertisers. That's just invasive, and Android's terrible permissions (e.g. phone status and identity are bundled together) don't help.

If Apple had done this, you'd have ZERO chance of halting that parade.....

I can't stand the religious zealotry of OS battles. And this move is just showing that there's no such thing as a "best" for the OS, phone, hardware, etc. ALL of them have tradeoffs.

I do wish the article had brought up more thoughtful discussion, though, perhaps an analysis on why ads were being blocked by users in the first place (though with Ars' stance on that subject, I doubt that article would be approved for publishing)

So I have a question for all the experts out there. Is the data used by these ads downloaded only when the phone is connected to a wireless network?

Reason I ask is that mobile bandwidth is limited and expensive. I have no issues with FREE apps having ads but they better be only downloading their stuff while I am on a free, unlimited downloads, wireless connection.

Otherwise, let me control when it downloads ad data or cellphone providers need to distinguish between ad data downloaded and NOT take it off our alloted monthly bandwidth.

I doubt any ad-financed app cares about what type of connection you're on. Mostly because very few cares, most just want their apps to be free.

Personally I prefer paid apps without ads, but it isn't always easy to find good paid alternatives. :\

Then there are the paid apps that have ads in them...those are the worst.

That clause could arguably be used to remove almost any app for almost any reason, but Google's decision is certainly a sensible move

Yeah I'm not a fan of that clause. It could be very easy to interpret freezing, killing, or firewalling apps to be "interfering" with them.

And while obviously Google has an interest in ads, it's still a bit hypocritical considering how many "legit" apps want to access my personal information and how little Google does to stop it. There are many apps I refuse to install because the app features are not worth the tradeoff of giving all my phone call records and GPS location to advertisers. That's just invasive, and Android's terrible permissions (e.g. phone status and identity are bundled together) don't help.

Not really hypocritical, I'd say they are quite consistent. Google is in the business of selling you, me, and everyone who uses their service. Ad blocking apps hinder their efforts there, while apps gathering your personal information helps them.

So not hypocritical, just really sketchy. Google is going to end up being evil, despite their vaunted "Do No Evil" rule.

I think this is a bad move, because smart users will have to advise those they advise either to find less secure channels for installing security software which Google doesn't like, or to put up with the annoyance and wasted bandwidth of ads they don't like.

Clearly Google are telling users that user authorisation counts for little compared with corporate authorisation, when it comes to who owns the platform users purchase into. At one time Google were a neccessary antidote to the practices of Microsoft - and now they're behaving in just as evil a manner.

I guess this hastens the day when I get rid of vendor supplied Android and install Cyanogen mod on my mobile devices - similar move to when I ditched Microsoft as my main desktop in favour of Linux and for similar reasons.

Moving from Windows to Linux means you're not using any Microsoft OS, but moving from vendor Android to Cyanogenmod just means you're moving from one Android mod to another.

But doesn't quite make sense given the 'open' nature of Android and Google Play; since Adblock plus is not a malware!

Android is open (ish). Google's apps have never been, and never will be, open in any real sense. There's nothing stopping you installing ad blocking software, Google has just decided to stop distributing it for others. I can't see any reason to make a fuss over that.

But doesn't quite make sense given the 'open' nature of Android and Google Play; since Adblock plus is not a malware!

Do you understand that Android can only exist because of income from ads? Nothing is 100% open and free.

People don't seem to understand this because there personal dislike towards Android/Google in general. Reminds me of Apple fanatics who choose to look the other way when it comes to copied ideas from Apple. Lord forbid there savior isn't "100% original".

But doesn't quite make sense given the 'open' nature of Android and Google Play; since Adblock plus is not a malware!

The devs who get their ads blocked might disagree with you.

Their opinion is entirely irrelevant.

It's not their property. Even the software that they think is theirs has been sold to you the user. It's yours now (at least that one copy of it).

Adware is more my idea of malware.

excuse me, but if you do not have the source code you can not modify the code, thus it is not yours. you get a license to use it, that you follow for ownership... and most licenses don't allow you to modify it...

But doesn't quite make sense given the 'open' nature of Android and Google Play; since Adblock plus is not a malware!

The devs who get their ads blocked might disagree with you.

Their opinion is entirely irrelevant.

It's not their property. Even the software that they think is theirs has been sold to you the user. It's yours now (at least that one copy of it).

Adware is more my idea of malware.

excuse me, but if you do not have the source code you can not modify the code, thus it is not yours. you get a license to use it, that you follow for ownership... and most licenses don't allow you to modify it...

I don't believe any of these ad-blocking apps modified any other apps' code. Mostly, I think, they prevented network traffic from ad servers.

At best, you might claim they allowed users to violate the terms of the EULAs of apps that showed ads.

Considering that ad blocking software requires your device to be rooted, this isn't going to have any practical impact on users who were technically savvy enough to install them in the first place. At least Google does allow for side-loading apps, which means that their walled garden is really walled with loosely arranged shrubberies easy enough to push through with some effort. Call it "closed" or "open," I'm not sure I can personally fault Google for wanting to preserve their revenue stream. Corporations are people too, after all.

But seriously, I do understand Google wanting to preserve their revenue stream. That's not evil, it's neutral. And they do provide a lot of good with all of that cash they collect (charity, employment, services provided, research grants, development of new technologies, etc., ALL of which would not be possible without dinero).

However, like most people I'd be willing to bet, this puts a bitter taste in my mouth. Maybe because it's right on the heels of shutting down GReader (which I found out on Ars through the GReader plugin on my terminal-condition iGoogle page), but I fear that Google is starting the process of becoming more like Facebook by forcing users into profitability models by removing content rather than providing alternative incentives.

It'd be one thing if AdSense behaved responsibly. I am not fundamentally opposed to ads, and if you don't pay for ownership rights or modification rights, you do not get the right to modify it to your preference. (Although I do believe these rights should always be available for sale in regards to digital content/media, a la DRM-free.) AdSense doesn't behave responsibly, though. I get the most crapware spammed to me through Google's ad delivery vehicle. If Google had policed this better, I wouldn't have blocked their ads. They didn't, so I did. Which is really an interesting commentary on the state of the "free and open internet" vs. free market capitalism -- I don't think there's any reason the two cannot co-exist, but inevitably both sides behave badly; companies overvalue what they provide and raise costs to prohibitive levels, and then internet users who otherwise could afford it go out and pirate (or pseudo-pirate, in the case of ad-blocking). I'm curious if we'll ever balance the "everything on the internet should be free" ideology with the sentiment of corporate capitalism that "we should make money on digital goods just like we do analog goods." Both are true and correct, but both are an anathema to one another. Google should get paid for their hard work, and I should be able to avoid the neo-Flash pop-over pop-under OMFG-you're-our-billionth-visitor-give-me-your-credit-card-NOW crap. Is it really that hard to find a middle ground?